A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the public performance or the mistake of the facts, or by misapprehending the legal principles, and did not take the victim’s abusive language as stated in the facts charged. Therefore, the elements of the crime of insult, among the elements of the crime of insult, satisfied the requirements of public performance.

It is difficult to see it.

B. misunderstanding the legal principles as to whether the defendant constitutes a political party defense or a legitimate act, the defendant reported 112 to the effect that he loses keys, and the police officer attempted to arrest the defendant as an offender when he is suspected of driving alcohol differently from the purpose of the report. This is an illegal arrest and does not constitute legitimate execution of official duties. Thus, the crime of this case committed by the defendant against this act, which the defendant saw the police officer to take a bath, constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

(c)

The sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to whether performance was performed, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of the facts alleged by the Defendant.

It shall not be readily concluded.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) The victim’s legal statement made by the court below on the grounds that the Defendant got up to the “Ding” road is specific and natural, as well as the content of the investigation report (the 14th page of the investigation record) prepared immediately after the instant case. On the other hand, the Defendant was unable to associate with what speech he did, as a considerable state of alcohol content of 0.208% at the time, as it was in the blood alcohol concentration of 0.208%.

In addition, the defendant's delivery of the above singing.